Walden project up their asses -- Joe Rizoli opinions 1

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 09:07:20 03/09/14 Sun
Author: Joe Rizoli (Stupid people's fight)
Author Host/IP: 146.115.156.139
Subject: Walden project up their asses

The stupid people who voted against this project got it shoved up their asses. This project would impact nobody yet some residents and screwballs fought this tooth and nail, now it bites them in the ass.

Joe

From: Adam Blumer
Date: 12:11pm, Mar 07

If I understand the ramifications correctly, this means that Walden will get
to build with less oversight that it would have had if the ZBA had unanimously
approved the project instead of voting for it 2-1, and NO contribution of tax
revenue to the town. Over the years, this is a decision that will cost the town
millions. Without debating the merits of the building/program, I have to say
the decision is a huge loss for the town in both of those realms. Worse, it was
predicted and could have been avoided.

It is fair and important to think about this in connection upcoming selectmans
race. One candidate, Deb Butler, spent most of her time last spring and summer
railing against this project for a wide variety of reasons that I criticized at
the time as overly exaggerated and flawed logic at best. I wont rehash that
here.

A number of people at the time noted that the alternative to what Ms. Butler
was painting as a horrific proposal could be far worse in terms of both the
land use and the revenue implications. Exactly what people saidthat the Dover
amendment could be used and the building built- occurred. Yet, to my knowledge
Ms. Butler never acknowledged on this possibility and it certainly didnt deter
her aggressive push for the ZBA to reject the proposal.

People may have mixed views on the Dover law itself, but it is the law. I
expect people running for elected office to have an accurate view of how
decisions they push for might end up causing long term problems and to factor
that into their thinking. Those in charge have a responsibility to push for
the laws/events they wish existed, but to also remain clearheaded about what
the actual laws and implications of their actions are at the time.

We spent several years with the town involved in lawsuits that wasted valuable
resources in part because some of our elected officials didnt see the
distinction between what the laws were and how they wished they would work. I
dont wish to elect officials who might return to the costly past.

Adam Blumer
▶ Rest of post
From: Nancy Donchin
Date: 2:50pm, Mar 07

Adam,

Thank you for this post, as it is spot on regarding the consequences of the
Walden debacle for Framingham and its citizens. The supposed 500 people who
signed a petition against this project, the fewer people who participated in
the Save our Framingham group, and especially the handful of people who
disparaged this project publically at every turn turned a blind eye to the
fact that this project was going to happen no matter what they did. Now they
▶ Rest of post
From: Sue Bernstein
Date: 2:54pm, Mar 07

Minor correction - Phil Ottaviani is a member of the ZBA, not the Planning
Board.

Sue Bernstein
▶ Rest of post
From: Rich Shapiro
Date: 3:24pm, Mar 07

Like Nancy, I too would hope that the agreed upon conditions negotiated with
the ZBA would be honored as well as a Payment In Lieu of Taxes for the tax
revenue lost. I could certainly understand Walden saying no to one or both
considering the history.
From: Matt Elliott
Date: 5:21pm, Mar 07

Unfortunately, once again Framingham appears to have cut off its nose to spite
its face.

As much as I disagreed with the neighborhood movement to protest Walden's
efforts, including what I considered its misguided efforts and hyperbolic
approaches, I fully accepted their right to do so. What really irked me in this
whole debacle was that one dissenting vote cast by Mr. Ottaviani.

Please correct me if I'm misperceiving something here, but by his own
explanations, and the reactions of his fellow board members, he had no
legitimate reason to vote the way he did based on the decision placed in front
of him.
Suggesting that Walden would not, somehow, be in "harmony of the neighborhood"
had no bearing on the actual decision in front of the ZBA. Yet he chose to
exercise his authority based on highly questionable reasoning.

To me this smacks of local politics being played out at the expense of an
entire town's best interests. And now, as another poster aptly pointed out,
Framingham stands to lose millions in tax revenue, and gave away its rights to
oversight in how Walden chooses to lay down its footprint.

I, for one, cannot excuse this kind of clouded judgment exercised by our
elected officials, and especially when it effects the wellbeing of our entire
community.

Matt Elliott

Sent from my iPhone
From: Debbie Chase
Date: 7:58pm, Mar 07

Point fingers all you want but the elephant in the room is the Dover Amendment
once again. I just wish our esteemed State Reps could band together and put
forth some amendment to the amendment that would stop these abuses that are
unintended consequences of the true meaning of the amendment. The school
superintendent wants millions more dollars and yet Framingham is burdened with
tax exempt private property sprawl.

Debbie Chase
▶ Rest of post
From: William LaBarge
Date: 8:12pm, Mar 07

From: Susan Petroni
Framingham Building Commissioner Michael Tusino has determined The Walden
Center for Education and Research, Inc. application for a building permit
is qualified under the Dover Amendment to construct an educational
institute at the former Marist property at 518 Pleasant St. The decision
can be appealed.

MY RESPONSE:
That is GREAT NEWS!!!!!!! I just hope that the inhabitants in Framingham
realize how lucky we all are to have a fabulous medical facility that will
treat various medical conditions and teach others to be able to care for the
sick. I'm glad that the Marists, a Roman Catholic order, decided to sell the
property to those who will care for the sick in the greater Metro West area.

From: Susan Petroni
Construction can not begin on the property yet. Walden will still need to
go before the Framingham Planning Board for site plan review approval,
before receiving a building permit.

MY RESPONSE
I hope that the current Planning Board will see that Walden is built right
insofar as when it's built, neither Walden nor the neighborhood are impacted
in a detrimental manner. I also trust that Walden developer and the Planning
Board will work in a proper manner. One, Walden fully cooperate with the
Planning Board. Two and equally important. the Planning Board act in a
proper manner 100% of the time, including not making unreasonable demands
upon the Walden developer.

ADDITIONAL RESPONSE
If we choose to fight Walden, I, as a Town Meeting Member, will vote against
funding such a legal fight. If we are to be in compliance with laws against
discriminating against the disabled, we MUST comply with the law by allowing
a place that serve the disabled to open without unreasonable impediment.
Just keep in mind that it was thru the Catholic Faith on how Walden happen
to be offered a chance to buy the Marist property from a Catholic order. I
would think transferring the property to a party that will use the property
according to the Catholic Faith by caring for the sick on that property is
the right thing for the Catholic Church to do. Any disagreement here???????
If so, please speak here or forever hold your peace.

I wish the best of luck for Walden.

William LaBarge
Town Meeting Member, Precinct 16
I am speaking only for myself and not necessarily for anyone else.
From: Jonathan Siegel
Date: 9:34pm, Mar 07

I don't see the Dover Amendment (good or bad) as the main point of the
discussion here. The point being made here is that the town needs leaders
who have the foresight to anticipate and consider the likely consequences
of the positons they push, and then pragmatically select from probable
outcomes that would end up best for the community. Lack of such
consideration could easily result in undesired outcomes that could easily
have been prevented, as many of us feel has occurred in the case of
rejecting the sale to Walden.
/Jon Siegel
▶ Rest of post
From: Linda Dunbrack
Date: 10:33pm, Mar 07

I think the Dover amendment and its ability to be manipulated is a critical
issue, and 100% germane to the original post made by Susan about the project's
status. Here is a case of a for-profit corporation manipulating (and in my
opinion, abusing) a law intended to protect non-profits, and even non-profits
abuse it at times and are disrespectful to abutters and neighbors.

That stated, I believe that the vote against the project was unwise for all the
reasons people have stated. I hope that people remember that the Board of
Selectmen appoints the ZBA: it is not an elected body. In my opinion, there is
another layer of accountability for this poor decision to be considered given,
that it is an election year.

I am all for people engaging in the public process and advocating for what they
believe, even if it doesn't coincide with what I believe. It is really up to
public officials to do the correct thing and be aware of the legal constraints,
regardless of the public pressure. They are the one's with the duty of care
with regard to their actions.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]